In order to counter the idea that it is OK to have abortions done in the first trimester of pregnancy, some anti-abortion people have come up with a brilliant strategy. They think it is more beneficial to their cause to declare that life begins at conception. They have decided that in reproduction the development period does not matter so, a tadpole is a fully developed frog, an egg equals a chicken, and a human fertilized egg is a person. I am surprised they did not claim it begins when one first thinks about having sex with his/her partner, because the idea was a divinely inspired one!
As usual, they have no proof and need none for a very malleable audience. Their idea presents several problems that they, of course, have not bothered to properly consider. For one, it telescopes the development period for human life, much-less a viable one.
To support this nonsense, some point to the equivalent of heart beats at 21 days signaling life. To demonstrate the importance of these tissues, compare how insignificant the presence of one poorly developed organ is relative to being a fully developed human life. There are people who have parted company with whole organs such as, a kidney, lung or spleen, or that even had various ones transplanted at the same time. So that nonsense is nothing but a cunningly contrived red herring.
But let’s follow their logic. Since life begins at conception the critical timeline is at that point, not when a woman first becomes aware that she is pregnant. According to the religious, anything she does that negatively affects the fertilized egg, even if ignorant of its existence, is considered sinful or criminal. That means it is very critical that women have some means of telling immediately the second that fertilization happens. We have no such ability and as a consequence, sexually active women have to take necessary precautions and cannot, for example, indulge in things like drinking alcoholic beverages, eating certain foods, and so on!
The government has to now start drafting laws to declare the fertilized egg a person, and so on. Just so those who are against a woman’s right to choose can have their way, this way. What do you think?
Concerned people everywhere have to immediately start a crusade to save the billions of “lives” lost because the female bodies in the world, for whatever reasons, naturally dispose of fertilized eggs. Since that number far exceeds that of abortions, I believe this should be given a greater priority.
In a related way, some anti-abortion religious nutcases and others have claimed that pharmacists have the right, based on their religious beliefs, to refuse to dispense certain reproduction related drugs to customers, irrespective of the customers’ beliefs.
If pharmacists truly believed that life begins at conception, they must also believe the chained truth that there are thousands of medications that are not abortion-related that they must also not fill for women of child-bearing age and who are sexually active! This would require them to question the clients about their personal and private matters and depending on the answers act accordingly to fill the prescriptions or not. What happens if the woman exercises her rights to privacy and refuses to answer these inquiries? In a similar fashion, religious bartenders too need to exercise caution in serving alcoholic drinks to women and should question them accordingly; under this theory they certainly do not want to run the risk of serving alcoholic drinks to someone who just conceived this morning!
A pharmacist refusing to prescribe contraceptives is like a religious person taking a job as a hangman and then refusing to do the executions. If they feel that strongly about it, they should not have taken the job in the first place because they know ahead of time what it entails. To turn around and protest after the fact is an indication the individual is trying to use a nefarious way to impose their religious beliefs upon others, and that process in itself smacks of evil and a violation of the constitutional rights of others! By the same token, should the Christian accept a job in a gun shop and then refuse to sell guns or bullets because they may be used to kill? What about a waitress who refuses to serve patrons meat because her religion teaches that animals also possess a soul? Do they now see how ridiculous their argument is and how it lacks any merit?
Where would it end, what other jobs should give people the same right of refusal? Does a librarian have the duty to prevent adult readers from accessing books with adult topics? It is not a part of such an individual’s job in any circumstance to control the morality of others, just as it is not the duty of a gun salesperson to prevent the gun purchaser from committing a crime using a gun just purchased, or refusing the sale because the gun may be used for wrongdoing.
The proper solution in all of these cases is that these individuals should either do their jobs or quit immediately if they feel that strongly about opposing the situation. Failing that, anyone who espouses that kind of theory should be fired immediately for being a complete idiot. The public needs to be protected from such a person, and action should be taken to prevent these folks from affecting other people’s lives.
www.denjenpublishing.com (Reference – “Then Man Created God: The Truth about Believing a Lie”)
Tags: abortion, anti-abortion, anti-choice, Christian, life begins, pro-choice, pro-life, religious, right of refusal
July 23, 2009 at 2:25 am |
Mr. McLeod:
Well, that last letter certainly convinced me! I don’t know how I could have been so wrong for so long. Thank you so very much! Hell, I might go get an abortion myself tomorrow!
Cordially,
Timbo
July 12, 2009 at 10:02 pm |
Mr. McLeod:
Sorry, but I am a little confused by your response. You say I must have “a great talent for knowing my parents’ past motive. That statement alone gives a great insight into how your mind works – For all you know, they just happened to feel horny that time”.
Do you suppose that it’s possible that at some point in the 50 years I was blessed to have them in my life they may have actually told me, directly and pointedly, that I was intended, and wanted, and loved, just as they intended, wanted and loved my ten other brothers and sisters? Well, they did. Does that help you?
What “great insight into my mind” do you derive from that simple, immutable fact of my life? Who, now, in this conversation, is claiming “great talents” not in evidence?
Next, what is false and self serving about my claim to a right to exist? Did I deny in any way nature or God’s right to call me back? Are you talking about getting struck by lightning? heart attack? Cancer?
I’m willing to stipulate that God, or nature, giveth and taketh away. That is the way of things. Life ebbs and flows. But neither of us was talking about falling off a building or an accidental drowning; we were talking about the deliberate termination of a pregnancy. In what way could that act be construed as an act of God? or Nature?
You say, in the same paragraph: “You could just as easily have been concocted by strangers in a Petri dish! You could also have been any of the billions of fertilized eggs that are spontaneously flushed from women’s bodies on a daily basis, naturally, intentionally or accidentally”.
Talk about false and self serving! If you would like to continue this debate, I suggest that you stick to what is real. I am talking about the fact of me and the fact of abortion. I was conceived, I was born, I exist, and despite your feeble protestations to the contrary, you and I both have a right to exist.
This right has been the founding principle of most civilizations for quite some time. And most of those social contracts, by the way, recognize a Deity, an organizing intelligence of some sort, from whom those rights redound. This was the context in which I made my statement.
The accident of my birth? What was accidental about it? I don’t think I can be contradicted when I say this: The only thing about reality that is inevitable is the past. I am here not necessarily because I was meant to be here, or that I am any more or less important than anyone else. But the fact is I am here! And that doesn’t make me better or more unique, it makes me grateful!
Human life in general is a precious right. You can either agree with that statement or not, but as I said above, our society regards it as such. In any event, I think arguing from the feeble supposition of what might have been is pretty illogical. And so far that’s all you’ve done.
Finally, your last paragraph is kind of insulting. First of all, I am in no way religious. Second, you have yet to name one thing that I have made up, whereas your whole reply had nothing to do with the central argument, and every thing to do with sniping away on the periphery of my statement with silly “what if” conjecture, things you yourself had made up.
Nor, do I believe you have succeeded in finding flaws in my beliefs. If you missed what my beliefs are, (which seems apparent) let me re-state them as a synopsis:
Human Life is precious, and it begins with conception. I offer my self as an example of that fact. I did not spontaneously come into being at age ten. If it is against the laws of God and man to end my existence now, it should be against the law to do so when I began as a two celled being.
I cannot control the forces of nature or God. With that understanding, I am all for a women taking complete control and responsibility for her body, as long as she is willing to take equal responsibility for the life she creates within it. That’s pretty much it.
I am sorry you felt it necessary sum up your last paragraph with an ad hominem attack. I hope you can come to regard me as just another someone with an opinion different than yours. It may be helpful for you to allow an objective third party to look for the possible flaws, illogic and irrationalities in your own arguments and beliefs, and allow them to give you their perspective.
I’ve done a lot of that, and while it isn’t very fun to have these things pointed out, it does provide me with a much broader view of the world. Just a thought.
Cordially, (and I think I really mean that),
Timbo
July 20, 2009 at 12:23 pm |
Dear Timbo,
You wrote before, “Fifty five years and some-odd months ago, My Mom and Dad engaged in sexual congress with the express purpose of having a child. Within a few hours, one of my father’s sperm managed to penetrate my mother’s egg, and a very short time later, something truly miraculous happened.”
With this you are trying to give the impression that you are in a position to offer first-hand testimony on the subject when you are clearly not, hence my sarcasm wasted on you. Even if your parents relayed information to you, there is no guarantee as to its accuracy. Your parents would not be the first ones to lie to their kids, especially to those who are emotionally needy. I try to deal in facts that are free of emotional wishful thinking.
They are not in a position to and no technology existed back then to help them pinpoint your conception. So unless they are weirdoes who only have sex to procreate, I stand by my previous remarks. Combined with the fact that there is nothing miraculous about egg and sperm uniting and the result – it is a common event that happens billions of times over. I do not understand why you try to elevate your coming into being as a miracle! I know, some people, because of ignorance regarding reproduction, still wrongly believe conception is a blessing from God and therefore must be appreciated.
Women have gotten pregnant as the result of something as evil as rape! In cases like these, there is no love, no miracle needed to impregnate. This has also been proven by the techniques used in artificial insemination; all it takes is a sperm and an egg. We now know enough about human reproduction, much more than were known when you were conceived, to realize that much of the religion-based arguments are nothing but garbage that should be dumped from our minds. Yet some people are too scared to part with the junk concepts offered by religion and still use them to guide their thinking. Within your lifetime you have firsthand knowledge of some of these – heart transplants are sinful because the soul is in the heart.
Emotion is often used instead of logic by dishonest people to rationalize, support their false conclusions. For example you talk about your parents’ love for you and your siblings as if that has anything to do with the subject under discussion. Could they have loved you ahead of time if you were an unwanted pregnancy or knew you would become a mass murderer? Their emotional state of mind may have influenced their decision at the time they learned your mother was pregnant with you but their current ones do nothing for the conversation yet you keep referring to them as if you have some obsessive need to be loved. Besides based on your age, back then there is a good chance they did not have much choice when it came to contraceptive and abortion choices. What your parents decided to do with their lives is not a yardstick or guide for the rest of the world. Each family has the right to make their choice just like your parents did.
You wrote, “Talk about false and self serving…… and despite your feeble protestations to the contrary, you and I both have a right to exist.
This right has been the founding principle of most civilizations for quite some time. And most of those social contracts, by the way, recognize a Deity, an organizing intelligence of some sort, from whom those rights redound. This was the context in which I made my statement.”
You know this is utter garbage because:
1) In most civilized western countries, including the United States, women have the choice of using various forms of contraceptives or having an abortion! There goes your claim of right to exist – In case you can’t tell, that is clear evidence that contradicts something you made up.
2) There is also freedom of religion, which includes the freedom NOT to recognize a deity. The fact that some people believe in a deity and conjure rights tied to that belief does not make them real. There is no generally accepted social contract that prevents an abortion.
3) Nobody has a right to exists. That is why people are legally killed. Contrary to what you claim, your life is not an example of how precious life is. The reality is that for all we know, the world might have been a better place if some people were aborted or never conceived – that could include you and your siblings! You have not given one iota of evidence that anyone can think otherwise. So you were born, so what? What is the significance to the rest of the world whether you live or die?
The rest of your rambling response is mostly the familiar regurgitated unsubstantiated religious type of garbage. For example you know your claim, “If it is against the laws of God and man to end my existence now, it should be against the law to do so when I began as a two celled being”, is not only illogical its premises are bogus! There are circumstances where it is quite acceptable to take your life, such as in self-defense or for certain criminal offenses.
Why is it that if these “important’ lives that could have been geniuses, etc are lost as a result some natural phenomena you folks consider it ok, no big deal, of little significance, while if a woman’s rightful choice creates the same end result (a loss of “life”) then it is considered a great wrong? Why the great hypocrisy? The reason is the fools who think this way are blinded by ignorance or are too scared to rail against God and find women an easier target.
Whether you are religious or not, you are using the flawed thinking of religious logic in your writings. Like the religious, for some strange reason you seem to lack the desire or the ability to accurately gather and analyze facts, while at the same time you possess the skills to make-up stuff on the fly. You, like so many others who have tried before, cannot contribute anything factual to counter the themes I present. You all tend to get bogged down in minutia and ignore the facts, the main theme of my blog – The “pro-life” stance and related arguments such as “right-of-refusal”, “life begins at conception” are a fraudulent attempt to deny women the right to choose to have an abortion!
You have not presented any facts to counter any of that! You are too busy feeling loved, being grateful for being born and trying to make your existence significant. So far, I am unimpressed with it. When someone has an opposing point of view I expect, at a minimum, for it to be rational, supported by facts. So, stop complaining and give me a point of view with some substance.
Some people feel insulted by the truth, I am sorry but I cannot help them. I am here to help people find the truth! By the way, you should let someone explain the use of “what ifs”.
I hope you start seeking and find truth soon. Don’t be afraid of it.
July 4, 2009 at 3:05 am |
Do I have the right to demand pork from a Jewish butcher?
July 7, 2009 at 3:22 pm |
Student, a Jewish butcher would indicate the meats he sells, – that would not include pork! A pharmacy in a similar fashion would have to indicate all the drugs that they do/do not offer. They would of course lose business that way, the public would know to avoid them and the market place would take care of the problem. The pharmacist would not then be in a position to impose his religion on others. The key point is he entered into a profession that would require him to do “objectionable” things that are really none of his business! Should he have the right to be a prostitute but refuse to service the johns?
Stop trying so hard to be a simpleton and digest the key points raised in my blog.
July 1, 2009 at 1:07 pm |
Student, there are more important things involved than merely the cost! There are, for example, the rights of the customers.
June 29, 2009 at 5:10 am |
Remember, we are spiritual beings having a human experience…
Fifty five years and some-odd months ago, My Mom and Dad engaged in sexual congress with the express purpose of having a child. Within a few hours, one of my father’s sperm managed to penetrate my mother’s egg, and a very short time later, something truly miraculous happened.
The egg divided, and all of the genetic information that made up my father, and all of the genetic information that made up my mother combined to make up all of the genetic information that is me, Timbo. And ever since that moment, I have been on a spiritual journey to become me. I have never for second stopped becoming me. And I had as much of a God given, unalienable right to the process of becoming me when I was composed of two cells as I do now, when I am composed of way too many cells. (Especially around my middle!)
This is because during gestation, regardless of which “trimester”, (HA! What a purely human word!), I was becoming me. I wasn’t becoming a blow fish, or a gazelle, or a polliwog, or a bristle cone pine tree, or a bacterium, or an African gray parrot. To be sure, I am not today the man I was yesterday, or that I was last year, or that I was at the age of twenty, or even the person I was at six weeks in the womb. But it is inarguable that every nanosecond from conception to this moment has been spent in the ineluctable continuum of my creation, and no one man or woman or nation or especially the woman who conceived me has the right to interrupt that continuum. To do so would be murder. At what point during the year of 1954 would it not have been murder? At what point since then?
The tragic hypocrisy of the modern feminist movement is that it has pinned its idea of liberation to the realization of complete reproductive freedom. The argument goes that each and every woman must have the sole responsibility for her own body. The problem with this logic of course is that the supposed “need” for an abortion arises out of an utter abdication of that responsibility in favor of short term sexual gratification. Relatively short term. At least, I’ve never heard of an orgasm lasting fifty-five years and some odd months!
Is indiscriminate unprotected sex with multiple partners considered responsible behavior? How about unprotected sex with your husband or committed partner just that one time? How about all the scenarios in between? (Yes, yes I make exceptions for the victims of rape and incest.) Unplanned pregnancies happen for one reason; no one plans for them!
Men are responsible for conception to the extent that they have sperm donor equipment and are at the ready 25 hours a day. But women have evolved all of the equipment necessary to create life, which means they are just as responsible prior to making that life possible as they are after the fact. It’s not a burden; it’s a sacred gift, a gift that is most grievously abused about 1.5 million times a year.
Timbo
July 1, 2009 at 1:28 pm |
Timbo, you wrote, “Fifty five years and some-odd months ago, My Mom and Dad engaged in sexual congress with the express purpose of having a child.“ You must have a great talent for knowing your parents past motive. That statement alone gives a great insight into how your mind works – For all you know, they just happened to feel horny that time.
You wrote “And I had as much of a God given, unalienable right to the process of becoming me when I was composed of two cells as I do now, when I am composed of way too many cells. ”
That is a false self-serving concept – It seems God forgot to tell nature about that “right”. You have no such right! Besides, you could just as easily have been concocted by strangers in a Petri dish! You could also have been any of the billions of fertilized eggs that are spontaneously flushed from women’s bodies on a daily basis, naturally, intentionally or accidentally.
What could possibly make you think that you are any different or special? The accident of your birth, – you could have arrived still-born? Would you then blame God for taking away your “right”? Your importance decreases exponentially outside your mind.
It is remarkable that one common characteristic of most religious people is the innate ability to make things up with such ease in attempts to support their flawed beliefs. That same ability makes them ideal candidates for brainwashing. Rational minded people are quick to see through their attempted deceptive arguments and so the religious tend to pooh-pooh logic as a bad thing.
As we can see from this example, in most cases, they have problems facing reality.
June 28, 2009 at 2:10 pm |
Why not just let the employer decide if the costs exceed the benefit for a pharmacist that refuses to dispense certain prescriptions?